Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 313–335 | Cite as

Definition of Physical Height Systems for Telluric Planets and Moons

  • Robert Tenzer
  • Ismael Foroughi
  • Lars E. Sjöberg
  • Mohammad Bagherbandi
  • Christian Hirt
  • Martin Pitoňák
Article
  • 146 Downloads

Abstract

In planetary sciences, the geodetic (geometric) heights defined with respect to the reference surface (the sphere or the ellipsoid) or with respect to the center of the planet/moon are typically used for mapping topographic surface, compilation of global topographic models, detailed mapping of potential landing sites, and other space science and engineering purposes. Nevertheless, certain applications, such as studies of gravity-driven mass movements, require the physical heights to be defined with respect to the equipotential surface. Taking the analogy with terrestrial height systems, the realization of height systems for telluric planets and moons could be done by means of defining the orthometric and geoidal heights. In this case, however, the definition of the orthometric heights in principle differs. Whereas the terrestrial geoid is described as an equipotential surface that best approximates the mean sea level, such a definition for planets/moons is irrelevant in the absence of (liquid) global oceans. A more natural choice for planets and moons is to adopt the geoidal equipotential surface that closely approximates the geometric reference surface (the sphere or the ellipsoid). In this study, we address these aspects by proposing a more accurate approach for defining the orthometric heights for telluric planets and moons from available topographic and gravity models, while adopting the average crustal density in the absence of reliable crustal density models. In particular, we discuss a proper treatment of topographic masses in the context of gravimetric geoid determination. In numerical studies, we investigate differences between the geodetic and orthometric heights, represented by the geoidal heights, on Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Moon. Our results reveal that these differences are significant. The geoidal heights on Mercury vary from − 132 to 166 m. On Venus, the geoidal heights are between − 51 and 137 m with maxima on this planet at Atla Regio and Beta Regio. The largest geoid undulations between − 747 and 1685 m were found on Mars, with the extreme positive geoidal heights under Olympus Mons in Tharsis region. Large variations in the geoidal geometry are also confirmed on the Moon, with the geoidal heights ranging from − 298 to 461 m. For comparison, the terrestrial geoid undulations are mostly within ± 100 m. We also demonstrate that a commonly used method for computing the geoidal heights that disregards the differences between the gravity field outside and inside topographic masses yields relatively large errors. According to our estimates, these errors are − 0.3/+ 3.4 m for Mercury, 0.0/+ 13.3 m for Venus, − 1.4/+ 125.6 m for Mars, and − 5.6/+ 45.2 m for the Moon.

Keywords

Geoid Gravity Heights Planets Moon Topography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Gregory A. Neumann (Goddard Space Flight Center of NASA) and another anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments that helped improve this manuscript.

References

  1. Archinal BA, A’Hearn MF, Conrad A, Consolmagno GJ, Courtin R, Fukushima T, Hestroffer D, Hilton JL, Krasinsky GA, Neumann G, Oberst J, Seidelmann PK, Stooke P, Tholen DJ, Thomas PC, Williams IP (2011) Report of the IAU/IAG Working Group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements. Celest Mech Dyn Astron 109(2):101–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardalan AA, Karimi R (2014) Effect of topographic bias on geoid and reference ellipsoid of Venus, Mars, and the Moon. Celest Mech Dyn Astr 118:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker MK, Mazarico E, Neumann GA, Zuber MT, Haruyama J, Smith DE (2016) A new lunar digital elevation model from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter and SELENE Terrain Camera. Icarus 2723(15):346–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker KJ, Robinson MS, Becker TL, Weller LA, Edmundson KL, Neumann GA, Perry ME, Sean C (2016) First global digital elevation model of Mercury. In: 47th Lunar and planetary science conference, LPS 47, Abstract 2959Google Scholar
  5. Bruns H (1878) Die Figur der Erde. Publ Preuss Geod Inst, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Drinkwater M, Floberghagen R, Haagmass R, Muzi D, Papescu A (2003) GOCE: ESA’s first Earth explorer core mission. Space Sci Rev 00:1–14Google Scholar
  7. Erwan M, Genova A, Goossens S, Lemoine FG, Neumann GA, Zuber MT, Smith DE, Solomon SC (2014) The gravity field, orientation, and ephemeris of Mercury from MESSENGER observations after three years in orbit. J Geophys Res Planets 119(12):2417–2436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Floberghagen R, Fehringer M, Lamarre D, Muzi D, Frommknecht B, Steiger C, Piñeiro J, Costa A (2011) Mission design, operation and exploitation of the Gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation explorer mission. J Geodesy 85(11):749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foroughi I, Tenzer R (2017) Comparison of different methods for estimating the geoid-to-quasigeoid separation. Geophys J Int 210:1001–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Förste C, Bruinsma SL, Abrikosov O, Lemoine J-M, Marty JC, Flechtner F, Balmino G, Barthelmes F, Biancale R (2014): EIGEN-6C4 the latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse. GFZ Data Services Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Gauss CF 1828: Bestimmung des Breitenunterscchiedes zwischen den Sternwarten von Gottingen und Altona, GottingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Freed AM, Johnson BC, Blair DM, Melosh HJ, Neumann GA, Phillips RJ, Solomon SC, Wieczorek MA, Zuber MT (2014) The formation of lunar mascon basins from impact to contemporary form. J Geophys Res Planets 119:2378–2397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frey HV, Roark JH, Shockey KM, Frey EL, Sakimoto SEH (2002) Ancient lowlands on Mars. Geophys Res Lett 29(10):1384.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001gl013832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gauss CF (1828) Bestimmung des Breitenunterschiedes zwischen den Sternwarten von Göttingen und Altona durch Beobachtungen am Ramsdenschen Zenitsector. Vanderschoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen, p 48–50Google Scholar
  14. Goossens S, Sabaka TJ, Nicholas JB, Lemoine FG, Rowlands DD, Mazarico E, Neumann GA, Smith DE, Zuber MT (2014) High-resolution local gravity model of the south pole of the Moon from GRAIL extended mission data. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060178 Google Scholar
  15. Goossens S, Sabaka TJ, Genova A, Mazarico E, Nicholas JB, Neumann GA (2017) Evidence for a low bulk crustal density for Mars from gravity and topography. Geophys Res Lett 44(15):7686–7694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gwinner K, Jaumann R, Hauber E et al (2016) The High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) of Mars express and its approach to science analysis and mapping of Mars and its satellites. Planet Space Sci 126:93–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heiskanen WH, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. WH Freeman and Co, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. Helmert FR (1884) Die Mathematischen und Physikalischen Theorien der höheren Geodäsie, vol 2. Teubner, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  19. Helmert FR (1890) Die Schwerkraft im Hochgebirge insbesondere in den Tyroler Alpen, vol 1. Veröff Königl Preuss. Geod. Inst, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Hinze WJ (2003) Bouguer reduction density, why 2.67? Geophys 68(5):1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirt C, Kuhn M (2017) Convergence and divergence in spherical harmonic series of the gravitational field generated by high-resolution planetary topography—a case study for the Moon. J Geophys Res Planets.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017je005298 Google Scholar
  22. Hirt C, Rexer M (2015) Earth 2014: 1 arc-min shape, topography, bedrock and ice-sheet models—available as gridded data and degree-10,800 spherical harmonics. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 39:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang Q, Wieczorek MA (2012) Density and porosity of the lunar crust from gravity and topography. J Geophys Res 117:E05003.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JE004062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karimi R, Ardalan AA, Farahani SV (2016) Reference surface of the planet Mercury from MESSENGER. Icarus 264:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiefer WS, Macke RJ, Britt DT, Irving AJ, Consolmagno GJ (2012) The density and porosity of lunar rocks. Geophys Res Lett 39:L07201.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Konopliv AS, Banerdt WB, Sjogren WL (1999) Venus gravity: 180th degree and order model. Icarus 139:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Konopliv AS, Park RS, Yuan D-N et al (2014) High-resolution lunar gravity fields from the GRAIL Primary and Extended Missions. Geophys Res Lett 41:1452–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL059066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Konopliv AS, Park RS, Folkner WM (2016) An improved JPL Mars gravity field and orientation from Mars orbiter and lander tracking data. Icarus 274:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemoine FG, Smith DE, Rowland DD, Zuber MT, Neumann GA, Chinn DS, Pavlis DE (2001) An improved solution of the gravity field of Mars (GMM-2B) from Mars Global Surveyor. J Geophys Res 106(E10):23359–23376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemoine FG, Goossens S, Sabaka TJ, Nicholas JB, Mazarico E, Rowlands DD, Loomis BD, Chinn DS, Neumann GA, Smith DE, Zuber MT (2014) GRGM900C: a degree 900 lunar gravity model from GRAIL primary and extended mission data. Geophys Res Lett 41(10):3382–3389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Listing JB (1873) Uber unsere jetzige Kenntnis der Gestalt und Grosse der Erde. Nachr. d. Kgl., Gesellsch. d. Wiss. und der Georg-August-Univ., Gottingen, pp 33–98Google Scholar
  32. Mader K (1954) Die orthometrische Schwerekorrektion des Präzisions-Nivellements in den Hohen Tauern. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen, Sonderheft, p 15Google Scholar
  33. Melosh HJ, Freed AM, Johnson BC, Blair DM, Andrews-Hanna JC, Neumann GA, Phillips RJ, Smith DE, Solomon SC, Wieczorek MA, Zuber MT (2013) The origin of lunar mascon basins. Science 340:1552–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moritz H (1990) The figure of the Earth. Karlsruhe, Wichmann H, p 279Google Scholar
  35. Neumann GA, Zuber MT, Wieczorek MA, McGovern PJ, Lemoine FG, Smith DE (2004) Crustal structure of Mars from gravity and topography. J Geophys Res 109:E08002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niethammer T (1932) Nivellement und schwere als Mittel zur Berechnung wahrer Meereshöhen, Schweizerische Geodätische KommissionGoogle Scholar
  37. Niethammer T (1939) Das astronomische nivellement Im Meridian des St Gotthard, Part II, Die berechneten Geoiderhebungen und der Verlauf des Geoidschnittes, in Astronomisch-Geodätische Arbeiten in der Schweiz, vol. 20, p 47, Swiss Geodetic CommissionGoogle Scholar
  38. Padovan S, Wieczorek MA, Margot J-L, Solomon SC (2014) Thickness of the crust of Mercury from geoid-to-topography ratios. EPSC Abstracts, Vol. 9, EPSC2014-738, European Planetary Science Congress 2014Google Scholar
  39. Perry ME et al (2013) Radio frequency occultations show that Mercury is oblate. Lunar Planet. Sci 44, Abstract 2485Google Scholar
  40. Phillips RJ, Saunders RS (1975) The isostatic state of Martian topography. J Geophys Res 80:2893–2898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pieters CM, Tompkins S, Head JW, Hess PC (1997) Mineralogy of the Mafic Anomaly in the South Pole-Aitken Basin: implications for excavation of the lunar mantle. Geophys Res Lett 24(15):1903–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rappaport NJ, Konopliv AS, Kucinskas AB (1999) An improved 360 degree and order model of Venus topography. Icarus 139:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rummel R (2005) Gravity and topography of Moon and planets. Earth Moon Planet 94:103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11038-005-3245-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sansò F, Sideris MG (2013) Geoid determination—theory and methods, Lecture Notes in Earth System Sciences, International Asociation of Geodesy. ISBN: 9783540746997, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos MC, Vaníček P, Featherstone WE, Kingdon R, Ellmann A, Martin B-A, Kuhn M, Tenzer R (2006) The relation between rigorous and Helmert’s definitions of orthometric heights. J Geod 80:691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott DH, Tanaka KL (1986) Geologic map of the western equatorial region of Mars. US Geol. Survey Map I-1802-AGoogle Scholar
  47. Shalygin EV, Basilevsky AT, Markiewicz WJ, Titov DV, Kreslavsky MA, Roatsch T (2012) Search for ongoing volcanic activity on Venus: case study of Maat Mons, Sapas Mons and Ozza Mons volcanoes. Planet Space Sci 73(1):294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sjöberg LE (1977) On the errors of spherical harmonic developments of gravity at the surface of the earth, Department of Geodetic Science, Report No. 257, OSU, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  49. Sjöberg LE (1999) On the downward continuation error at the Earth’s surface and the geoid of satellite derived geopotential models. Boll Geod Sci Affin 58(3):215–229Google Scholar
  50. Sjöberg LE (2007) The topographical bias by analytical continuation in physical geodesy. J Geod 81:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sjöberg LE, Bagherbandi M (2017) Gravity inversion and integration theory and applications in geodesy and geophysics. ISBN 978-3-319-50298-4, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  52. Sleep NH (1994) Martian plate tectonics. J Geophys Res 99:5639–5655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith DE, Zuber MT (1996) The shape of Mars and the topographic signature of the hemispheric dichotomy. Science 271:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith DE, Zuber MT, Solomon SC, Phillips RJ, Head JW, Garvin JB, Banerdt WB, Muhleman DO, Pettengill GH, Neumann GA, Lemoine FG, Abshire JB, Aharonson O, Brown CD, Hauck SA, Ivanov AB, McGovern PJ, Zwally HJ, Duxbury TC (1999) The global topography of Mars and implications for surface evolution. Science 284:1495–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith DE, Zuber MT, Frey HV et al (2001) Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA): experiment summary after the first year of global mapping of Mars. J Geophys Res 106(E10):23689–23722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith DE, Zuber MT, Neumann GA et al (2010) Initial observations from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA). Geophys Res Lett 37:L18204.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043751 Google Scholar
  57. Smith DE et al (2012) Gravity field and internal structure of Mercury from MESSENGER. Science 336:214.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spudis Paul D, Reisse Robert A, Gillis Jeffrey J (1994) Ancient multiring basins on the Moon revealed by Clementine laser altimetry. Science 266(5192):1848–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stokes GG (1849) On the variation of gravity at the surface of the Earth. Trans Camb Philos Soc 8:672Google Scholar
  60. Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber C (2004) The gravity recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys Res Lett 31(9):L09607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tenzer R (2004) Discussion of mean gravity along the plumbline. Stud Geophys Geod 48:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tenzer R, Vaníček P, Santos M, Featherstone WE, Kuhn M (2005) The rigorous determination of orthometric heights. J Geod 79(1–3):82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tenzer R, Hamayun, Vajda P (2009) Global maps of the CRUST2.0 components stripped gravity disturbances. J Geophys Res (Solid Earth) 114:B05408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tenzer R, Novák P, Vajda P, Gladkikh V, Hamayun (2012a) Spectral harmonic analysis and synthesis of Earth’s crust gravity field. Comput Geosci 16(1):193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tenzer R, Gladkikh V, Vajda P, Novák P (2012b) Spatial and spectral analysis of refined gravity data for modelling the crust-mantle interface and mantle-lithosphere structure. Surv Geophys 33(5):817–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tenzer R, Hirt CH, Claessens S, Novák P (2015a) Spatial and spectral representations of the geoid-to-quasigeoid correction. Surv Geophys 36:627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tenzer R, Eshagh M, Jin S (2015b) Martian sub-crustal stress from gravity and topographic models. Earth Planet Sci Lett 425:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tenzer R, Chen W, Tsoulis D, Bagherbandi M, Sjöberg LE, Novák P, Jin S (2015c) Analysis of the refined CRUST1.0 crustal model and its gravity field. Surv Geophys 36(1):139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tenzer R, Hirt CH, Novák P, Pitoňák M, Šprlák M (2016) Contribution of mass density heterogeneities to the geoid-to-quasigeoid separation. J Geod 90(1):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tenzer R, Foroughi I, Pitoňák M, Šprlák M (2017) Effect of the Earth’s inner structure on the gravity in definitions of height systems. Geophys J Int 209(1):297–316Google Scholar
  71. Vajda P, Vaníček P, Novák P, Tenzer R, Ellmann A (2007) Secondary indirect effects in gravity anomaly data inversion or interpretation. J Geophys Res (Solid Earth) 112:B06411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vajda P, Ellmann A, Meurers B, Vanícek P, Novák P, Tenzer R (2008) Gravity disturbances in regions of negative heights: a reference quasi-ellipsoid approach. Stud Geophys Geod 52:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vaníček P, Tenzer R, Sjöberg LE, Martinec Z, Featherstone WE (2005) New views of the spherical Bouguer gravity anomaly. Geophys J Int 159:460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wieczorek MA (2007) The gravity and topography of the terrestrial planets. In: Schubert G (ed) Treatise on geophysics, vol 10. Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, pp 165–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wieczorek MA (2015) Gravity and topography of the terrestrial planets. Treatise Geophys 10:153–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wieczorek MA, Phillips RJ (1998) Potential anomalies on a sphere: applications to the thickness of the lunar crust. J Geophys Res 109(E1):1715–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wieczorek MA, Neumann GA, Nimmo F, Kiefer WS, Taylor GJ, Melosh HJ, Phillips RJ, Solomon SC, Andrews-Hanna JC, Asmar SW, Konopliv AS, Lemoine FG, Smith DE, Watkins MM, Williams JG, Zuber MT (2013) The crust of the Moon as seen by GRAIL. Science 339:671–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilhelms DE, Squyres SW (1984) The Martian hemispheric dichotomy may be due to a giant impact. Nature 309:138–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wirth B (1990) in Höhensysteme, Schwerepotentiale und Niveaufläachen, in Geodätisch-Geophysikalische Arbeiten in der Schweiz, vol. 42, p 35, Swiss Geodetic CommissionGoogle Scholar
  80. Wise DU, Golombek MP, McGill GE (1979) Tectonic evolution of Mars. J Geophys Res 84:7934–7939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zuber MT (2001) The crust and mantle of Mars. Nature 412(12):220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zuber MT et al (2012) Topography of the northern hemisphere of Mercury from MESSENGER laser altimetry. Science 336:217.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zuber MT, Smith DE et al (2013) Gravity field of the Moon from the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) Mission. Science 339(6120):668–671.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Tenzer
    • 1
  • Ismael Foroughi
    • 2
  • Lars E. Sjöberg
    • 3
  • Mohammad Bagherbandi
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christian Hirt
    • 5
  • Martin Pitoňák
    • 6
  1. 1.The Department of Land Surveying and Geo-InformaticsThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Geodesy and GeomaticsUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada
  3. 3.Division of Geodesy and Satellite PositioningRoyal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Industrial Development, IT and Land ManagementUniversity of GävleGävleSweden
  5. 5.Institute for Astronomical and Physical Geodesy and Institute for Advanced StudyTU MunichMunichGermany
  6. 6.New Technologies for the Information Society (NTIS), Faculty of Applied SciencesUniversity of West BohemiaPlzeňCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations